We can’t afford refugee children because we spent everything blowing up their houses, claims government

Blowing up the homes of Syrian refugees doesn’t come cheap, according to government officials under increasing pressure to accept 3,000 refugee children.

After voting against a proposal to take in the extra Syrian children – the figure of 3,000 suggested by charity Save The Children – Conservative MPs said that money can’t be wasted housing these children when there is expensive weaponry to buy so we can blow up where they currently live.

“We simply can’t afford to take three-thousand displaced children, the money just isn’t there,” explained one government official, fresh from ordering a new batch of Paveway bombs at £22,000 a pop.

“As much as we’d like to help these desperate children who are homeless and in need of some stability in their lives, the fact is that a Tornado costs £35,000 an hour to keep it in the air, and a cruise missile is almost half a million.

“So when the choice is between putting a roof over the head of a Syrian child, or blowing up the one that was directly above their bedroom, there really is no choice.

Other parliamentarians have defended the decision to spunk money we don’t have on a problem we can’t solve in a place we don’t live.

As one other Conservative backbencher explained, “We’ve only got a few hundred million quid to play with here, and I’m afraid it’s all been spent, or set aside for more important things.

“Half a billion quid doesn’t go very far when Brimstone missiles cost £105,000 each, so providing food and shelter for needy children is just pie in the sky.”